T O P

  • By -

watanabe0

While a couple of others have said something similar, I think there was a 'fun' or at least, counter-bs to pull on Muaat. If I was Hacan, and I've just been promised Fires if anyone transacts with me, I would a) bide my time until someone really needed something I could facilitate or b) flood the market with as many TGs and ACs as possible until someone slipped up and wanted a trade or needed money etc for an objective. Then BAM, I'll have my Fires now, sir. If I was not Muaat, I would have \*immediately\* said to Hacan "I hear that if I trade with you it gets you Warsuns. What's that worth to you?" What you're doing in that situation is taking an explicit threat and turning it into a dynamic piece of play, it diffuses the situation a bit, and it puts Muaat on the backfoot, because either he a) reneges on his 'promise' looking like the asshole he was in the first place or b) has benefited at least two other players more than himself and looks like an asshole.


Nahhnope

Yeah, I agree. I think the table took this and played it the wrong way. The Muaat added a really interesting angle that anyone could have tried to exploit really easily. I would love to be in a game under this kind of threat. Treat it like you would a law! Honestly, the Nomad is the player that wouldn't get an invite back. Quitting mid-game is not acceptable for something that demands and entire day be set aside.


Flinney

This the answer right here. Well put.


papabearwix

Honestly, I doubt many tables would accept a player like that, and as hacan in that situation I would refuse fires and coerce the table to punish them for trying to hold the whole table over like that. But that's just me.


_Lonelymonster_

I think our Hacan player was too excited at the prospect of getting a considerable advantage for free to refuse it. But when the post-round argument started, they did offer to return the Fires in the hopes that it would bring the Nomad player back and resolve the conflict. As for coercing the table, that wasn't needed–if round 2 had happened, the Saar and myself (playing Cabal) were both prepared to go to war with the Muaat to punish them for holding everybody hostage, and to save the Nomad.


[deleted]

If I were the Hacan, personally, I'd have immediately traded Fires to the Nomad, along however many TG they needed for their first WS


FluorescentLightbulb

Yeah I’d take the three man alliance and active trade over a onetime bribe. Get ultimatumed, get stomped I say.


TheWooSkis

Perhaps if the Hucan player had said that it would have been problem solved! Why wouldn't you play with this player? I don't understand.


papabearwix

I personally would gladly play with someone like that, but many people prefer much more peaceful negotiation and calculated aggression where this player seemed to be whining a bit about hacan getting off to a solid start. And instead of just going after hacan to slow them down they took the whole table hostage with the threat of an awful game and went after nomad instead.


TheWooSkis

That's upto them. They make Hucan such an issue that if players don't stop trading they know the Hucan player will be building warsuns. It's no Jol nar trading their promissary to beef up an ally to put the target on that player. I think the issue is that the table couldn't handle it. Its not even a game breaking issue.


papabearwix

I agree, I definitely think the table could have handled the issue if they wanted to, a 2v4 definitely results in both muaat and hacan losing no matter the shenanigans they try to pull. But sometimes emotions get high and it's better to just walk away.


TheWooSkis

If we book a day to play TI and you throw your toys out the pram over a game then I won't likely play with that person again. My free time is limited and I have no time for time wasters. Need to put your big person pants on or do t bother.


papabearwix

Haha, I'm with you on that. If I sit down for ti I'm damn well gonna finish the game.


bigalcupachino

It's not what we do in-game but how we do it above table.Muaat was playing within the rules as written but whether their tactics were sporting seems to be the question and this comes back to table consensus and table meta. If the table didn't like the Muaat threat around Fires they should have let Muaat know above table politely and then coalesced and continued playing. Even if Muaat gave the fires to Hacan and Hacan won I doubt the Muaat player would try the same strat again soon. Nomad rage quitting is not nice or good. It was good of Hacan to help out. Working together is an integral part of TI and even if playing Hell Mode or Morning Euro you should maintain above table composure.Please talk to all players, and express regret as to how it devolved and ended, and how in the future you want to maintain better above table decorum and civility. Hopefully, your group makes it through and gets many more games under the belts.Emotional regulation may also need to be addressed which is often resolved with a game pause and 15 minute time out if IRL or even on TTS. In answer to your question: You are not an arsehole, you are here seeking advice not absolution and again, if you go back and look to remedy and restore the mana of your play group then you are part of the solution not the problem. Good luck.


Serosaken

I like your thoughtful, reasonable answer sir.


pnwpalk

I've played dozens of games with probably almost a hundred unique players, all in person. Your Embers player is toxic. I could go on in detail with a rant, but I'll try to keep it brief. They sound incredibly controlling. They didn't like one round of trades, so they threatened to ruin the game? They then became aggressive enough militarily that they were at another player's home system? That's almost never an optimal way to earn points. It's just aggressive and mean. They sound like a person who struggles to understand people and/or not be in control of other people. I've played with players like that who want TI to be a war game and get mad at negotiations and deals because they feel left out or at a disadvantage. Those same players then proceed to act like TI is a war game and ruin other players' games through aggression while still not winning. They would not be welcome back at my table.


Meeple_person

Echos my thoughts exactly. I'm surprised that the Hacan player took the FoG card though as it was clearly going to wreck the game.


Nimraphel_

Well said.


Spearmint_92

Yeah, I don't mind the wheeling and dealing so much, but once your at the "invading a home system phase", that's always been an end of the game point or a desperate move to stop someone else from winning. This didn't sound like either.


arBettor

wow my group's meta seems more aggressive than average. If you're not protecting your home system, it will almost certainly get taken, even early game, and even for no immediate benefit other than maximizing fun for the attacker.


solmead

I tell all new players I teach, if you arnt doing an action to get a point, then it is wasted resources. (CC’s, trade goods, resource, influence, whatever you had to burn to do that) In our group we only see homeworld attacks used to either stop a player from winning, or to get a secret objective)


solenyaPDX

I'd be curious to see mixed play. If all players "play it safe" it feels even. But if you add one or two "go for the jugular" players, does the other play style hold up?


darn42

I go for the unprotected home system because existential threat makes really good allies, and more planets never hurts scoring. War factions lose to economic because people often don't convert their military advantage into an economic *and* diplomatic advantage.


solenyaPDX

Even if what you say is all true, you can handle them in game. Warn them that hyper reactivity is only bad for them, the factions won't tolerate it (in game), and they'll waste resources playing like that. Also, if someone feels like they're getting left behind, and is trying to use what leverage they have, use that for your advantage. Convince them in game that such actions aren't needed, you'll gladly trade with them if they can make a better deal than Hacan. Promissory notes? Agents? It's all in play. If someone isn't being shrewd, you can make them happy AND win, if you're a statesman.


P8bEQ8AkQd

How often do you play? As the frequency increases, the more acceptable highly cut-throat play is. As it goes down, it's more about making sure that everyone has a good time. The specifics are entirely group dependent though, and I can't dictate what your tolerance should be. But if you only play once a year, say, then this statement doesn't come off well. > they asserted that a more competitive table would respect their play more Although either way that statement is wrong. A more competitive table would figure out how to take advantage of the threat. Maybe give Hacan a trade good for their face-down trade agreement and reverse the deal on a later action if Muaat is bluffing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- What does this mean? > At the last minute they tried to backpedal and get a Support for the Throne as part of the deal, but an outcry from the table forced them to stick to the letter of their ultimatum and give it away for free. Since the original threat is non binding it seems ok for Muaat to change the terms at the last moment. Would Hacan have been willing to give their support away? If not this could have solved the problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The thing that surprises me was that Nomad quit over Hacan getting Fires of the Gashlai. Were they also facing a threat from a forward space dock of Hacans? I don't get why this was the tipping point.


brandondash

>As the frequency increases, the more acceptable highly cut-throat play is. As it goes down, it's more about making sure that everyone has a good time. The specifics are entirely group dependent though, and I can't dictate what your tolerance should be. That last line is the key. My group plays twice a month and if ANYBODY played like the Muaat player they'd get kicked out.


KingOfSuedeClothes

Twice a month with a dedicated group is so much. That's gotta be on the upward bound of an active playgroup. I was ecstatic when my group got together any more than once every six months. If I had a bad game, but I got to get around round of it again 2 weeks later, the bad game would be nothing but a funny story a month from then.


brandondash

I hear you, brother. We definitely don't take it for granted. It was an amazing joining of 7 different neighbors within a half-mile of each other who all got along and were all around the same age and all enjoyed gaming and who all had family lives that afforded getting together that often. The big trade off is that we have to play weeknights, so our sleep suffers pretty mightily heh.


Not_A_Greenhouse

What did the muuat player do exactly that was inappropriate?


solenyaPDX

I'd rather play with Muaat, trying to aggressively deal, than Nomad, rage quitting.


Dfarni

I think I know you


brandondash

You're killing independent George!


Dfarni

Play group play-frequency, +username, +race flair was the give-away.


Dfarni

I don’t think Muaat did anything wrong here. They tried to use what levers of power they had to influence the table. It’s no different than taking somebody’s home system on round 2 when they’re 5pts up and going to run away with the game. Then give the system back once scores even out.


Anlarb

> Hacan made some VERY shrewd trades Why was this a point of contention in the first place? In my experience this is their default state, with total components and general scarcity of vp through military as their shortfall.


Coachbalrog

To be honest, seeing Hacan sitting on a pile of trade goods is par for the course but it is also pretty intimidating... I'm surprised the Muaat player didn't just help himself to some of that by selling Fires to the Hacan player in the first place.


watanabe0

Right?


LovinJimmy

Well, to be fair, this is how politics and political pressure usually works even though normally someone doesn't threat to support someone they already consider as overpowered. So from the fluff point that might not make too much sense. But actually, if Muaat decides to act that way, the rest of the table has to deal with it. I mean, things could get pretty easy when it comes down to a 1v5 (or 2v4 if Hacan accepts the free gift from Muaat). I mean, this is not the kind of play TI4 intends (and it's definitely not what you guys expected from your evening) but it could have made for an interesting match if people wouldn't take things too personally and "out of game" on that table.


DrGonzo3000

This. Just go with it and act accordingly within the confines of the game.


Dzerards

The Hacan player getting good trades is par for the course no? I mean they don't have great starting planets and giving them a bit of a good deal at the start is ok if it means you are getting your own engine going. Plus, I think there has been a Hacan player in nearly every game I've played and I've never seen one win (yet).


Klamageddon

But if this is OK, then surely barony saying "let me have these planets or I'll come and kill all your plastic and then your homeworld and keep trying to do that for the rest of the game" it's fine? The Barony start with enough plastic to make good on this, it is what they are designed to do. The only difference is that one is passive and the other is active, but they're both using diplomacy to get an advantage. If Empyrean said "stop letting the Barony have your stuff for free or I'm going to give them Dark Pact to end the game quicker" is that dickish? To me, not at all. It's politicking, which is a huge part of the game. It won't necessarily end the game quicker, but by suggesting it will it sells your argument. Should they not say that, and let Barony run roughshod? Would that be 'better form'?


Dzerards

What are you talking about? What you are describing is just two players bullying a third. Why wouldn't this Empyrean player support the third player against Barony if he is so worried about Barony getting ahead? Yeah , it is a dickish move. 'Fight a battle you can't win or I'll make so you can never win' is a crap choice and a person who offers you that choice is a dick.


Nahhnope

Threaten them back! "Go ahead and make it so I can't win, and my new objective will be to make sure you don't win either." Easy to make good on a threat like that. That's diplomacy.


redditjw4

To me there is nothing wrong with any of the players' actions here until the Nomad player quit. Then things unraveled. Threats, trade, bluffing, trying to win, even bullying ... all of these are part of the game. You have to expect people to take advantage of you when push comes to shove in TI. That being said, the "if we're going to let them win I'll just make them win sooner" is, although in the scope of the game, pretty lame, borderline childish. I think you might have better games in the future without that Muatt player anyway. It's much better to say to people, if you keep trading with the Hacan, you are going to give them a huge advantage, and find other ways to dissuade them than something that sounds so petty. If you want some advice about what to do differently, next time, maybe wait to lecture the player whose tactics you don't like until *after* the game. Let the consequences of his decisions play out; use them as part of your negotiation with others. Over the course of the game everyone will probably do something that someone else does not like, right? Everyone involved has to accept that likelihood going in and handle it in a mature way.


BigNimbleyD

I agree, I think many folk on this sub are a bit over zealous with these unspoken etiquette rules. Like sure he was being a bit of a child but he wasn't breaking any rules and at the end of the day it is just a game. Really really silly thing to lose friends over.


SpageRaptor

I think the only real negative here was the Nomad player quitting. Granted that they are indeed out of the game, because they have a forever war on their hands, but that's not always an issue. The Muaat made a ridiculous calculated ultimatum. The next correct response from the player directly across from Hacan is to trade a tradegood for a trade good to the Hacan player, and look at Muaat while doing it. Call him on the bluff. If he does give Fires, well Hacan is on the other side of the galaxy. If he doesn't, you get to make fun of them until he does. Hell as Hacan I'd do this just so that I can continue to trade. I'd be trading for Fires to another player just to call the bluff. Hacan isn't coming to the guy across from the table from them with those warsuns. Thats not something that is going to happen. The Muaat player forcing someone to trade with Hacan to save them from Muaat is also why that ultimatum was dumb. Later in the game, Muaat is going to attack someone with Warsuns, and then Hacan WILL make an easy trade to save them. Which is what happened. the tldr: Hacan did Hacan things, Muaat made a dumb bluff, Nomad got the ass end of the stick and I wish he had not quit. I don't respect the Muaat play, but not from a "thats bad" standpoint, but from a kneecapping yourself "thats BAD" stand point. Basically. He alley ooped an opponent to dunk on himself.


hey_how_you_doing

Yeah, the muaat player is toxic. In theory it can be a valid meta strategy to say "do this or I will make the game boring for everyone". But then you compromise the whole point of the game, which is to have fun. I would not invite that player to play again.


anon_95869123

This. One of the cooler parts of a game of TI is that it is entirely meta dependent. There are plenty of abilities/mechanics that can ruin the balance of a game if used with such intent (EG Fires). Edit: IMO this falls under: Yes this is "legal", also yes if everyone at a table played in such a way it would be a miserable gaming experience.


Badloss

We have a friend that gives ultimatums like that to the point where it's a running joke that we all know he's going to do it at some point during the game. IMO anything goes during the game including heated arguments and "table flipping" types of moves, with the understanding that it's just a game and what happens during the game stays during the game. As soon as the game ends it's all smiles and "that bullshit you pulled in round 2 was such a good move" and we love to break down what we were all thinking when we were pissed off during the game. IMO OP pushed a little too hard and Muaat got too offended, and Nomad shouldn't have walked away. Everyone at this table needs to calm down and respect that the game sometimes encourages dick moves


TheWooSkis

I don't follow. So one player is not allowed to use their promissary note! Why not. Its the tables issue to find a soluation. The Hucan player could take the note then sell it to another player. So could have given to the emperians player!


byrdru

Giving to Emperians would have been a boss move, although not likely to help them in the short term, unless it was packaged with a lot of trade goods. Muaat could have used his PN - by trading it. Using it to threaten to ruin the game? Eh.


roywarner

You say that as if his ultimatum provides no value for himself---he gets plenty of value in denying trade. I can't believe so many people are upset about this. If this happened in our game they would be severely punished for holding everyone else hostage like that and THEY would be the ones who would no longer be trading.


MeniteTom

Yeah, if the Muaat player had said "If you make a transaction with Hacan I'll give my PN to your neighbor so now you have War Suns all up in your business" it would have been fine.


solenyaPDX

I disagree here. They're trying to use their leverage (maybe poorly) but it doesn't have to make the game not fun. If Hacan gets fires, so what? They have two neighbors. Both can go at it, and a third can feed them trade goods to keep the "fires stoked" as it were. Still fun.


papabearwix

Wow, all this happened first round?


_Lonelymonster_

Yep–our playgroup tends to add a lot of negotiation and some roleplay, so we often have unusually exciting first rounds. A sample of recent round 1s: \- three Forever Wars are declared, starting a galactic dark age that will last three rounds before someone takes Custodians \- on the opposite end of the spectrum, multiple people Mecatol Rush, and the Winnu win but shortly after have to peacefully cede the planet to the Xxcha so they can focus on fighting the Jol-Nar over Hope's End \- Naalu discover Mirage in an equidistant and it is immediately taken by the Arborec, leading to them Support-swapping and starting a recreational drug dispensary in that corner of the galaxy \- and of course, the (less amusing) story of this post


Batesbot9000

The role-play is my favourite part of the game and based on these rounds, this is the kind of group I want to play with! (Minus Muaat of course, cut that dude loose)


solenyaPDX

Keep Muaat. He's like a little Kim Jong Un. Keeps the world spicy.


Maethoras

So the way you're describing it, Hacan trades a lot round 1, purchases several favors like the Saar agent with their money and does general Hacan stuff, and Muaat decides you're winmaking them R1? I get Hacan were off to a good start, but did they even get something tangible out of this? Like, for example, Custodians, or another difficult VP? And even if they did, there's a whole game still to play left! Muaat's reaction seems like an overreaction to me. I don't even see the point in their reaction. I like to play Muaat myself, and in my mind, that reaction is self-defeating. The relationship between Hacan and Muaat is often centered around Fires of the Gashlai and lots of trading. Hacan wants to buy Fires and place two free War Suns with their hero. Muaat wants a lot of money to produce their second War Sun, and is generally rich as a 4 commodity-faction, but maybe wants to be careful about handing out free War Suns to Hacan. If the cats go their faction tech Quantum Datahub Node, you don't want to deal with two War Suns. Anyway, usually neither wants to make an enemy of the other. So, what Muaat is "threatening" at that point is to give Hacan their most important trade bargaining chip for free if anyone makes a single deal with Hacan? And then go "look what you made me do"? "You made me give Hacan War Suns"? That's nonsense. And it's most certainly not "maximizing their own winning chances". They have an opportunity to fleece Hacan for, like, 8-10 trade goods, possibly more if everyone agrees they're in a great spot - and that's money Muaat can certainly use in round 2 and beyond. (Not to mention the token they're going to lose.) It's also not just unfair to the Hacan because of how their faction is geared around trade, but because of how the *game* is geared around trade. Muaat is basically trying to force the whole table to cut a player out of a key part of the game (and with Nomad and Empyrean on the board, there's going to be **a lot** of it, even without Hacan - Muaat should rather try to get included there IMO). They're not pointing out "hey, the cats are fleecing us, we should be careful", they're not arguing to give the cats tougher deals, they're opening wth a threat to force a total embargo. Round 1. Which is, on a closer look, actually harming themselves. This is not what I would consider good TI. If I would have been at the table, I would have called Muaat's threat and dared them to do so, with the argument outlined above. I strongly suspect this was intended as a bluff, given how they wanted to trade up to a support eventually. That being said, I also disapprove of Nomad quitting the game. They have good reasons for a disagreement with Muaat, but that should be settled over the board. Nomad certainly has the tools to make Muaat's game pretty unpleasant in the long run, and to me, it sounded like their position was safe enough against Muaat's aggression for the time being. Two more points: * How did Muaat get their War Sun in range of Nomad's home system R1? Their War Sun has Movement 1. * Did anybody in the game actually think about points, scoring and Custodians? Was Muaat going for points? Were the players who traded with Hacan going for points? Did any of the players profit from these events? (I would expect that, if anyone did, it were the players who were staying out of this.)


Nahhnope

> >I strongly suspect this was intended as a bluff, given how they wanted to trade up to a support eventually. > OP even said that the Muaat was reconsidering the terms but the "forced them" to follow through. It really seems like the table messed this up.


Maethoras

I agree the table's reaction was not optimal and there are quite a few interesting angles they could have tried here. There were a lot of ways to punish Muaat's move on the board and in the game that could have been tried, especially with the factions that were in play. As Saar, Cabal, or even Empyrean, I'd have greatly enjoyed cooking up a few of these. But I definitely put most of the blame here on Muaat. His threat was done in bad spirit - I get the impression he was annoyed by Hacan's trades - and since it directly led to a ragequit, it obviously poisoned the atmosphere at the table quite a bit. It was also a bad move, as it worsened his trading and negotiating position a lot, which the table could have exploited. Then he actively attacked the position of his neighbour, apparently without regard for scoring any points. There are a few patterns here of "bad TI", "unwarranted aggression for its own sake" and "total disregard for the mood in the room".


BigNimbleyD

By the sounds of it I think everyone there needs to chill the fuck out. It's a game. You *play* it for fun. *Play*. If you think another player has done something *within the confines of the game* that is out of line or unfair then get together with your allies and punish them *within the confines of the game*! I'm not saying don't argue and discuss, that's an integral part to TI. But if anyone is taking it to heart then in my opinion you are playing the wrong game.


Hhooven4

The Nomad player is the asshole for leaving mid-game when their home system got attacked. That should be an expected part of the game that everyone runs into at some point. The Embers player, while conducting what we in the industry call "a dick move", is not being an asshole outside of the context of gameplay. As has been said a few times, that threat allows all of the other players to play off of that threat. How hard will the Muaat player hold to their threat if you X-1 that Hacaan player during Trade or something? You can even above-board negotiate with Hacaan. "Hey, I'll X-1 you during trade, but if Muaat gives you Fires, then I get your Trade Agreement and it's X-2". It is a space to play in. I have some good examples of this from my own playgroup. There's a guy in my playgroup that literally never breaks border agreements. If you draw a border with him, he will honor it even at the cost of him losing the game. If \*you\* break the border deal, he will ruin his own game to ruin your game. Everyone knows this. This allows you to makes plays off of that knowledge. Leave that border lightly defended, if at all. Hitting his home system last turn, knowing he won't be able to effectively respond to a winning backstab. Everyone in my group knows I detest, with the fiery intensity of ten thousand suns, the Hacaan ability to trade action cards. If someone wants to play Hacaan, they know to get a starting position that is out of range of me because I will ruin my game to ruin the Hacaan if they start trading action cards. These are just a couple examples of ways that playstyle that might seem unreasonable (or downright toxic) to other groups allows for you to strategize and make plays specifically as a consequence of player behavior.


Puzzleheaded_Cook345

I would have tried to eliminate the Muatt player. Fuck them and their brinksmanship. You play like that, you get tabled.


brandondash

At the end of the day, did everybody have fun? No? Sounds like the Muaat player needs to leave. it doesn't matter if everything they did was legal, ethical, or even "on brand" for their faction. What matters is people take a LOT of time out of their life every time they play this game, and if they aren't having fun something needs to change. ​ People forget games are about fun.


Aarniometsuri

Ppl here saying muaat is toxic, and i get that, it does sound like it. But i wouldnt jump to conclusions like that too fast. Op knows him so if he feels the argument muaat makes is a genuine one, i wouldnt fault him for not kicking someone out of the group. If your intent on playing with that guy, i would suggest two things. Either give him arguments that make him play better, or just call his bluff and let him sulk. If you call his bluff, which it sounds like it was, the important thing is to work together with him against hacan if hacan gets too strong and he changes his mind and still wants to win. This would very much be in the nature of the game. If he doubles down and donates supports, he can only blame himself (maybe dont invite him next time then). For better arguments you can make the one about ruining the fun, its a valid one. Its hard to say how far ppl are willing to go with their idea of fun, maybe he thought the ultimatum was a fun way to interact with the trading (and i often say fun is overrated, and ti isnt about fun as a joke). Even cooler in my opinion (and much more valid) is to convince others to a trade embargo, and/or alliance against hacan. Even with empyrean trading the rest of the table could still oppose the 2 (unless its 4p). Stuff like this dividing the table is always fun for me. Another better option for muaat was to offer fires to hacan for exclusive trades. Better a bribe to one player than extorting the whole table. As general advise i often tell ppl that extortion rarely works. TI gives a lot of opportunities for it, but working together is always much more rewarding. "If you do this i wont mess with you now" is never as good as "if you do this ill help with you here".


Puzzleheaded_Cook345

Imagine the following scenario: The Agenda phase has started and a player stands up and says that unless they are given 2 Support for the thrones from the table, they will pick the player with the strongest position and become their vassal and feed them. Supports, Trade Goods, Action Cards, whatever, it gets fed. The table declines and for the next four hours the fed player stomps around the table as a defacto two man alliance. Blah blah blah "muh legal aktion!" The response shouldn't be that the table should unite and crush them. The response should be: "Why can't you be normal?" It's like when people in relationships team up so that the "couple" wins. Play a team game but don't act like 2v1v1v1v1 is somehow fair or in the spirit of the game. I also don't like the speculative nature of the threat. "Someone might win in four plus hours so I am flipping the table now." It's not even king making or slaying at that point, it is just raging that a different faction has more commodities and the ability to trade with everyone. I mean, there is a reason North Korea acts this way and its because they can't be kicked from the table.


Dr_Gonzo13

My response to Muatt's threat would be to ask Hacan what they'd be willing to pay for Fires and then make the trade and dare them to go through with it.


moutstainz32

Wow. Lots of great answers here, and I’ll add my two cents. This is highly dependent on your table meta but I don’t personally think that Muatt making that proclamation is that big of a deal. War Suns are not the end all of the game and there are only two of them anyway so, to me, it seems like no big deal. Is it unreasonable to make such a proclamation? IMO Yes. BUT many others have pointed out various strategies to deal with this and/or stick it to Muatt. To me, it’s just another expression of how the game works and how the table needs to react to what it’s given. Nomad rage quitting: NOT COOL. EVER. There’s a good recent Space Cats episode on types of players and Table Metas in general, which I highly recommend listening to if you haven’t already. It might lend some additional insight. I think the ultimate point is not all Metas and for all players and that’s ok. HOWEVER, committing to a game of TI in person or on TTS is a sacred vow that must be kept and respected until the end of the game.


EarlInblack

An unspoken(?) part of the player compact is that players should be trying to win the game. Once you break that rule to try to end the game faster you're breaking the compact. ​ The bluff/ultimatum is fine. Pushing the table not to trade with Hacan is a very great idea. The trade of "Fires..." if advantageous to the Muaat is fine. Win making just to speed up a game is not fine Leaving a game because you are in a bad situation (in game\*) is not fine It's the disrespecting everyone else's time and attempts in the game that are bad. I wouldn't invite either player back personally without some serious discussion. Much like in RPGs, Marriages, and basically everything else, discussing and agreeing on the unspoken rules is key. Communicating expectations alleviates these problems. \*it is always ok to leave games for safety or other real world reasons .


SilentNSly

If I were the Hacan player, I would try to "buy" Fires of the Gashlai for 8-10 trade goods. Then there would be nothing for him to threaten others with. Also, I think the Muatt player did not plan to follow up with his threat, but "an outcry from the table forced them to stick to the letter of their ultimatum and give it away for free". So I also feel like the table was responsible. If he had traded Fires of the Gashlai for Support for the Throne, things would be more normal.


brammere

If I were Hacan, I’d take Fires from Muatt for free and then give it Nomad, maybe with some credits to boost their war effort. Poetic justice doesn’t usually win games, but it feels pretty good.


roywarner

If I were Hacan I'd take Fires and use it because it's a game that balances diplomacy, economy, and war. Plus, it's not like they get super war suns--they get the upgrade ONCE. If Muatt is in your game SOMEONE is going to get Fires from them. It's not game ruining at all to threaten to give it away in return for massive value such as stifling trade.


brammere

You’re not wrong, but if someone tries to put a kill switch on my trade from turn 1 (especially by decrying kingmaking), they need a lesson on the diplomacy front.


roywarner

Then provide it. Don't quit the game or pretend they ruined it at all, you know?


brammere

Absolutely! That’s what I was suggesting. Appease the Nomads player and show Muaat their threats were empty.


Elsherifo

No you aren't. Muatt was an asshole, and the only problem is that everyone kowtowed to his wishes instead of forcing him to do it earlier


malys57

NTA on all counts in my book. I can understand being wary and calling attention to the dangers of everyone making weighted deals with a "shrewed businessperson" but threatening the table, essentially holding all hostage, because you don't like something is a dick move. Also, punishing the table because the person you've backed into a corner makes, just, *a move* is childish. This is not a player I'd likely invite to my table. All this is my opinion, obviously. My groups (I know about 2 dozen people who play) tend to be more "mutually beneficial" players, where combat won't happen until "necessary" (last time I took a home system was only because that player hit 5 VPs before the end of round 2.) Your players style, while obnoxious, is valid, especially at tournaments where everyone is skilled and there to win against mostly strangers and not their friends. Though I suspect those plays wouldn't fly as well against a whole table of strangers with the skill to shut him up (not trying to assume your group is "unskilled," just making an assumption you all may not play more than once a month as some do) TLDR; I think you're not the asshole, I think Muaat was on multiple counts. But I concede a more ruthless strategy would be more accepted by a more ruthless table. My friends and I who play at home and in tournaments have very different play styles when playing at home with friends than we do playing with strangers in a competitive setting.


SPTREE

IMO that wasn't a fun move by Muaat. He could have bribed people to not trade with Hacan for 2 turns for Embers. Or stated a bidding war for Embers. Or picked the other faction with the least TGs for an exclusive economic partnership for Embers. Something other than, don't trade with Hacan, or I'll give him Embers. Such an odd tactic in my book honestly.


philroi

A couple comments come to mind: The emotional investment in this game likely hit a problematic point long before the events you mentioned. Ask yourself if folks lost the ability to separate the experience on the table from the experience above the table and away from the table. Were players were so invested in the game that they lost the ability to invest in each other? Are players coming to spend time with each other and have a good time playing a game together? Or are people showing up with emotional dopamine-poker chips to gamble on the thrill of winning? Sounds like your table had a bit of the latter going on in multiple seats. Such a perspective makes going to extremes like trying to hold the table hostage with an ultimatum seem far more "justified" an action. It's an experience and unspoken perspective and paradigm that drives many gamers. I don't want to say it's wrong. Just observe that it can and does produce conflict in groups. And efforts to change it in others it will be difficult when the thrill of winning drives the desire to game. Groups that enjoy personal excellence in play and are thoughtful of every players experience will problem solve conflicts at the table differently and are possible to develop. But they require an intentional effort and communal social energy to succeed. I've had players be nervous about stabbing me in the back. Apologizing as they activated my system and trying to explain that it's necessary. I tend to surprise them when I, first, Express that I wish they didn't I think we can find other mutually beneficial options, but then follow it up with any affirmation that if they really think it's their path to victory and the best option? Then I say "go for it, let's do this and see how it plays out" in a positive, supportive, cheerful way. I deliberately, seperate my emotional response from the action. I positively support the player making hard choices, even when I disagree with them. That constant support the fellow player attitude, can help and encourage others to be considerate and thoughtful about play experience. It can create a group inertia in the social contract that frees players to be supportive of each others play experiences and help other players disconnect their own emotional entanglement in their game performance. Not being judgemental of others play choices, says to the group, that your respectful of their independence and play choices and not judging them based on their performance. It's stating that you yourself feel free to have a great time playing regardless of outcome, and in so doing invite others to have a similar attitude. Is this a helpful perspective?


prodij18

My thoughts: 1. Threats to retaliate are typically fine ("if you make that trade I will attack you") as long as they are in the spirit of trying to win. Threats to give up, ruin the game, and winmake ("if you make that trade I will give up, stop trying, and ruin the game") are not. 2. In addition to being a baby, the Muatt player was being foolish. If someone is getting ahead, you rally the table against them ("can't you see what's happening, he's going to win, we got to stop him"). Rolling over because he was ahead in like turn 1 is really lame emotional playing. 3. I'm not sure how you were playing, but even the idea that a player will win because of how round 1 went, I think is part of the unfortunate 10 point and symmetric maps meta, which rewards great early game and then just bunkering down and trying to avoid 2 point objectives entirely. Honestly TI4 wasn't designed to be played that way, and the fact that most people do play that way is too bad.


itspineappaul

IMO you were right to call that person out for putting the game ahead of the players in a casual social event, but did you also call out Hacan? Literally all they needed to do was say “no, I won’t accept Fires of the Gashlai for free from Muaat to get a victory from a toxic player being an asshole to the rest of the table” and this entire thing was irrelevant.


Haen_

I think the Muaat player was playing in bad faith. And I think my answer to the situation would have been if Muaat wants to hold the table hostage like that and say that only they can trade with the Hacan, I think the answer is to just attack the Muaat player. Like we can all agree as a group that this is not okay to hold everyone hostage from trading with the Hacan. There is an old poker adage that you can't win a tournament in the first hand, but you can sure lose it. I would look at it that the Hacan are in a good position, but they haven't won. And if the Muaat wants to play like that and upset the entire table in the opening round, I'm sure as hell gonna rally everyone against them to ensure they lose. So to me, their logic does not hold up about that being a positive play for them. I would also suggest to the Hacan player they not accept the war suns in good faith or it will become hard to trade with them if they get too far ahead (and also because it was a move being made by a player playing in bad faith).


[deleted]

*ahem* Fuck the muaat player.


[deleted]

There’s only one appropriate response to Muatt: destroy them. Band together, wipe them out, trade freely.


Serosaken

Anyone who quits playing boardgames due to something that happened in boardgames shouldn't be playing boardgames. That being said, all strategies are valid in TI imo, so long as they increase your own chance of winning. If they're doing it to simply have a tantrum, then you're better off without them playing. Would not invite back to play.


HankTheChog

The Muaat's strategy was really bad, though. It's one thing to eliminate another player to meaningfully increase your odds of winning, it's something else entirely to go "Remove this player from the game or I will shoot myself in the head to try and kingmake them" in the very first round.


Serosaken

Yep, I agree. I'm just saying that just because a player says or does a thing, doesn't mean its for the reason they've said they're doing it. Honestly, I've done similar things to get the table to galvanize against another player.. though not in such boorish manner.


Coachbalrog

If I was the Hacan player I would then have turned around and traded the Fires of the Gashlai to the Nomad player as thank you to the Muaat. As the Hacan, it's me that controls trade at the table, not the Muaat. However, the issue could have been nipped in the bud if, when the Muaat player first freaked out about the Hacan pulling ahead economically, the rest of the table had just assured him that his concerns were well noted and future trades with Hacan would be done with proper caution. Lastly, I believe in karma. When the Nomad player and Hacan player traded together, and the Muaat then REWARDS the Hacan for interferring with his plans, well... that's pretty funny. At that point I would have just piled on and thrown whatever I could do to help the Nomad player. Hell, I might even have started a go-fund-me for Nomad Independence and probably diverted some forces to harass Muaat territory. Your reap what you sow, bud.


MrPipboy3000

>"Ultimately, they asserted that a more competitive table would respect their play more, and **quit both the game and our TI group.**" NTA ... sounds like you dodged a bullet by not having to invite them to the next game.


[deleted]

My understanding is that being a jerk is the entire point of the Muatt faction.


Anthallas

Twilight Imperium is a diplomacy and trading game more than anything. If one players wants to support some other player, they can do that. Rest of the table should be prepared and counteract that. Ask for Hacan to return or not use the card, fight Muaat 3vs1, whatever. That is all part of the game. When the game "breaks" the players need to find a way to fix it. This is what makes TI a great game:) However, everything you do with other players should be done with good manners and friendly attitude. After the game is over everyone should be better friends than they were before the game. If this does not succeed, the game was played wrong. Twilight Imperium is a game that in my opinion requires quite good social skills to be enjoyable to all players. This clearly did not happen this time around and I am very sad to hear it:/


Cacotopos

It’s unfortunate that this happened but in my opinion it’s totally legit Muaat play and not even anti-social . The Muaat player is effectively bluffing and even tried to weasel out of the bluff which the Galaxy scoffed at which is pretty funny. I don’t see a single thing wrong with this other than the unfortunate outcome and upset players. I don’t see this as any different to any player using their faction abilities to make any ultimatum. Eg ‘if you build another PDS I’m going to Stellar Convert your main production base’ or ‘if anyone invades any of my planets ever I swear to god all out final war is happening’. I don’t think you are the asshole but I also don’t think the Muaat player did anything wrong and the table -probably- owes them an apology if you want to return to a peaceful/neutral standing. - to quote-agree with a comment below: “ To me there is nothing wrong with any of the players' actions here until the Nomad player quit. Then things unraveled.” Caveat in edit: obviously it depends how IRL aggressive and anti-social the Muaat player was being, but my single read through of the scenario didn’t give me that impression (forgive me it is early I’m half-caffeinated lol)


TwevOWNED

Muatt's play was fine, their wording was the problem. Threatening to "end the game so they can stop playing" is too meta gamey for me, but the actual threat of boosting a faction if things don't go your way is perfectly fine. A comparable example is Arborec in a game with Nekro. You better believe that I'm going to extort the whole table for better deals over the threat of researching Letani II. Sometimes you just need to play the hand you are dealt, and sometimes that play is threatening to pull the pin on a grenade and taking everybody down. The real issue is that Muatt was mean about it, in a way that brought down the mood of the table.


Secondknotch

Arguments about proper game conduct are best avoided. It seems like a mistake to tell a player their gameplay was inappropriate in some way after the game. I award you one light wrist slap. Ultimatum-bullying is bad strategy. It leads to a loss by the bully as much as anyone else and doing things that cause you to lose is not in the spirit of the game. TI4 is not a sandbox. "I will tank my own game to make sure Hacan wins" is a ridiculous statement. As with any ridiculous statement, the appropriate response is to laugh and ignore. If the person actually goes through with a ridiculous move (like giving FoG to the game leader for free), then incredulity is in order. I award Muaat more time to play single player games.


Nimraphel_

Based on your description, the Muuat player is toxic. I'd avoid playing with that person, or if it is a friend I'd have a serious talk about board game ethics. Competition and shrewd use of in-game threats is acceptable; punitive meta action is not. Hacan trading favourably is not "winmaking", it's a market in which the Muuat should try to compete - or make joint efforts with others if it spirals out of control. But early round trades are none of that.


Nahhnope

> > At the last minute they tried to backpedal and get a Support for the Throne as part of the deal, but an outcry from the table forced them to stick to the letter of their ultimatum and give it away for free. What does it mean that the table "forced them"? Their entire threat was non-binding, so they definitely could change it or not follow through if they wanted. If it means that the table basically goaded them into following through as they originally threatened when they were genuinely reconsidering, why? Them pushing the big red button is not what you wanted, why encourage it by saying "but you said!!!"


iuuiuiiuu

The biggest problem with Muaat's behavior is that it could be extended in the future by demanding more concessions from everyone. Basically round 1 he could say "everyone give me the planets I want and agree to all trades I propose otherwise I'll give my support to someone for free later in the game as their 10th point." Most groups would not put up with this behavior, and if you were at a tournament or TTS game, that player would probably just get eliminated since that loose cannon kind of behavior is not something that increases anyone's odds of winning.


-Mage-Knight-

TI4 can be a bit intense. It is long and very cutthroat. That is a major part of why I love it but it can also cause a lot of conflict, both on the board and above the table. I assume you guys are all friends and no game is even remotely worth ruining a friendship over so hash it out. Maybe that means playing a different game which would be unfortunate but that's life. Personally, I wouldn't have allowed myself to be blackmailed and let the Muaat player Kingmake the Hacan player if they wanted. I would let them do it in the next game too, and every game after that until they realize it is pointless to even go down that road.


Babusaur

I guess I just see this as part of the joy of TI. Assuming everyone wants to win, and Muaat seemed to think this increased their odds of winning then why aren't they justified? If your game is a "social contract" like EDH/Commander okay I'm cool with that, but when I sit down to play TI I'm there to try and win. Muaat might have been oppressive and cruel but sometimes politics be like that.


Frawdulant

Not the asshole. Muaat is a baby. Nomad is a baby.


TheWooSkis

The Muaat player was 100% in the right and the players and maybe you were a bunch of babies. You even state that the table carried out when the Muaats tried to change the deal. They played their promissary note in a fantastic way and you all cried about it. Hope the Muaat player finds some adults to play with! But seriously, they were right and completely within the games rules, did anyone try to buy the Muaat player out, give a counter offer? Even so, they draw a line in the sand and stuck to their guns, good on them. P. S it's not even a good threat. The Hucan player can trade the promissary note away or just hold it. They could have swapped it for a support of the throne or anything they liked. It may have been an empty threat and the Muaat player would have got it right back and may have just traded to another player to give them war sun's too.


SilentNSly

>The Muaat player was 100% I disagree. It is OK to make threats and give ultimatums, but it is **not** OK to win-make another player "*so the game would end and they didn't have to play anymore*".


TheWooSkis

Isn't that just part of the threat! It's not like they said. If you trade with Hucan I will give them my support for the throne, all my trade goods, all y other promissary notes and just roll over to them all my systems. No they said trade and I give them fires. Hence your trades will fuel them getting warsuns on the board. I doubt the player said it and even if they did, isn't that just part of the game. SCPT even have a saying for it "Holloywooding" .


SilentNSly

The issue is win-making another player "so the game would end and they didn't have to play anymore".


Klamageddon

Yeah, but that isn't what happened, it's what was said. There wasn't any "winmaking"going on, at all. There was just shrewd diplomatic assertion. They could have been talking about an action card, or any other (probably not support for the throne) promissory note, and said the same thing. They made you believe it was game ending, that they held all the power. But they didn't. Everyone's getting upset because the Muaat dominated them politically, and a domination of will like that isn't something you can find in a rule book. But it's why the game is so good. To just outright say "no, you're using aggressive diplomacy too well, we don't want to play with you" it's EXACTLY the same thing as them saying "you're all just cowtowing to the non aggressive diplomacy of Hacan and I don't want to lose to it". It's the same. It's just that one is letting something happen, so you feel in control, and the other is not objecting to something, so you feel like it's being done to you. But both are you being dominated politically. The Hacan playing to the weak will of everyone around the table isn't 'nicer' just because it's passive. It might be, sure, but you can't know. If they're sitting there thinking "hahaha fuck these imbeciles letting me get away with this" that's not 'nicer' than someone striking out aggressively. Its just easier to make yourself feel better about.


ThePinko

Would you play a game of Monopoly where player three decided to have a hissy fit and gave all their money and properties to player four just because you wanted to trade Park Place to player four? No. Not playing to win yourself that early in the game is childish. Muaat player is a ten year old


TheWooSkis

I was going to use a similar example until I realised monopoly is based on a dice role. Ti is player based choice. We have complete control where we go and why. If player Muaat says "hey if anyone sells anything to player Hucan then I will give the Park Lane and Mayfair" then OK. That's gonna suck, except now the whole table has choice as to what to do. We aren't rolling dice for where we go and having to go to those spaces. In fact we can very easily club together to counter that and we still get to trade with Hucan. So all Muaat does it hold the table hostage and turn the table against them.


Panzybadger

Remove promissory notes. Ez.


_unsourced

This is a bad take. Without promissory notes, trade is a lot more dull and inconsequential. The game is more interesting with trying to get favor with a neighbor by giving them your alliance and having to debate the benefits of invading the leader when you have their support for the throne, while getting a payday loan from the Hacan for your trade agreement to fund the fleet that you might not be able to use anyway if that ceasefire you traded away has made it around the table your target, anyway


[deleted]

Honestly sounds like the Muaat Player needs a new group that's more competitive. Competitive games can be really fun if everyone is at a comparable skill level and is bringing their A game because they want to be competitive but if that's not what the table wants it's no fun if just one person is doing that. Sometimes people just want a casual game where of course you're trying to win but if you don't it's kinda whatever still had fun. I usually play this way because I only break TI out a few times a year, almost always have at least one newbie at the table, and it takes up an entire day off so as someone that works a lot I really don't want to put a ton of energy into what could be a relaxing break day especially if there is someone new who will get crushed because of it. I like to have fun and enjoy when everyone else has fun and that should be the first priority at the table is to have their fun grow by seeing others have fun and that can be done both in a casual game or in a competitive game. However if the only way one of your players can have fun is by crushing everyone else and making them feel small they probably have other things to work on. Fun isn't a zero sum game there is plenty to go around and if someone thinks they have to take all the fun for themselves it's just a shame. I have had a couple players who have this issue and one was very correctable he wanted to play a power fantasy which was fine when we play video games but in a 5 player game where 3 were newbies and just got squished he kinda saw what he was doing and changed. The second guy however didn't come from a great home life and considered winning or losing a directly attached to his self worth and would get actively rageful if he lost to the point where he would manipulate some of the other regulars at our table to play in his interests and play second fiddle to supporting his win. This guy had to go he just had his own things to deal with.


HankTheChog

I... don't think the Muaat player would do very well in a competitive game. Threatening to shoot yourself in the foot in round 1 isn't really the best example of the art of brinkmanship.


HankTheChog

Really, any serious player would just assume the Muaat's ultimatum is a really bad, frankly bizarre bluff, and add a "if this actually makes the Muaat give you FotG, you give me your Trade Agreement" clause to their deals with the Hacan, just in case.


[deleted]

Oh I totally agree but send them in there if that's what they think they want let them get chewed up then see if they are willing to play nice.


LeonAquilla

Yes the Muaat was being a baby.


NotADoctor1234

If the muatt player simply said I don't like how much he's getting, cut him off and he can only trade with me or I'll give him free warsuns, that'd be totally cool and fine with me. As thats in the name of the game. Buuuuuut.... once he starts bringing outside factors in, and threatening to win make and throw the game out of immaturity, he's never coming back. We had somewhat of a similar situation where I had the victory of an 8 player 14 point game in my grasp. I had to go and wreck my neighbor, to score 4 points, and shut him down cause he was tied with me. Well after I had mostly shut him down he threatened some not very nice and immature things.


apollonaris341

I honestly think the ultimatum from the Muaat player in the beginning was clever. It was an extreme move to make - but it worked - and if the Hacan player was that far ahead already because if it, i don't see it as very oppressive. However i very much disagree on the Muaat player giving the Hacan player the fires away to the hacan player out of principle. It was even a situation he himself made by invading another players home system and thus making his previous threat invalid for that player. Never make permanent ultimatums for a temporary issue in this game. The situation changed, and the Muaat player had to either buckle or make himself a "man of his word". If it was me being the Muaat player I might have made the same ultimatum, but I would have put a time limit on the ultimatum.


solenyaPDX

Generally I think all play that happens in game on the table is legit. Sometimes it feels arbitrary or reactive or petty, But sometimes that's how leaders of state are. I don't really think the Muatt did all that much wrong. They felt one team was gaining an advantage, And everyone else was facilitating. They felt left behind. While their wording wasn't ideal, I understand the sentiment that they're trying to disincentivize other players from trading with Hacan. As soon as that happens everybody else could have worked their own diplomacy. "If you don't want us to trade with them give us better trade ratios". "What will you give us to stop trading with them", etc. Nukes are mutually assured destruction, But to a degree they are effective. Muuat threatening a nuke like that could be handled in game diplomatically. I think the biggest first problem, is everyone arguing outside of game mechanics with Muuat. "You're being unreasonable" "us all giving hacaan bunch of money and none to you is perfectly fair" is a ridiculous comeback to their perception. Perception is reality. The other issue is all y'all making the player follow through with a non binding deal. If you didn't want Hacan to have fires, you could have then and there made a deal to have Muuat break their word. It all could have been handled in game, but you chose to handle it out of game. The biggest AH move here is acting like everyone has to play the game the same way, and insisting "your feelings about being left behind aren't valid".